Where did y'all figure she was the sister? Not daughter or in law? I seen the movie an to me it was not real clear. An I thought she "wounded" him by not giving him satisfaction.
– user25796Sep 10 '15 at 3:21

See this quote from the movie : [Mortimer has just recovered the watch from Indio, which contains a picture of the woman that Indio raped] Monco: [peers at the picture] There seems to be a family resemblance. [He hands Mortimer the similar watch with the same picture he had taken earlier] Monco: Here. Col. Douglas Mortimer: [pause, then] Naturally, between brother and sister.
– StreltsovSep 10 '15 at 9:03

2

If she kills her attacker, and he has a small army of thugs under his control, what comes next for her? If she does not kill her attacker and does nothing, what comes next for her? Maybe you'd think she'd go the "kill first, then suicide" route, but maybe her own ultimate escape from the hell takes precedence over revenge, and, while she can take her own life, taking another's is not an easy thing, and what if she messes that up? So she just goes with the suicide while she still has the nerve.
– PoloHoleSetJul 21 '16 at 14:37

4 Answers
4

In For a few Dollars More, El Indio is the villain, pursued by Manco and Mortimer. The attack on Mortimer's sister is revealed in flashbacks, so that event happened earlier than the events in the main timeline of the movie. If Mortimer's sister had killed him, there would be no villain, and thus no story and no movie. So it really boils down to a narrative decision.

Also, the film was made in 1965. While female characters in movies of the time were capable of committing violence, it was more likely that they would be victims. Mortimer's sister can be seen as an example of the Disposable Woman trope, a female character whose death gives the hero a reason for revenge. There are also elements of the Lost Lenore and Heroic Sacrifice tropes. But again, it boils down to a narrative, plot choice made by the storyteller. Even if it would make more sense for her to have shot El Indio herself, the storyteller needed him alive and her dead to tell the story he wanted to tell.

I understand that Mortimer's sister has to die while El Indio survives for this story to unfold. What I don't however, is why she wasn't put in a situation where she would not have such an ample opportunity to kill her agressor. This seems to me as more of a stupid sacrifice tan a heroic one. But I guess you are right, it is an almost 50 years old movie and as such it carries the values of its time.
– StreltsovOct 16 '14 at 15:39

I watched the movie again bearing your comment in my mind however, and the fact that she deliberately chose suicide when she had the possibility to avenge her lover made the 'nostalgia' scenes with El Indio and the pocket watch more powerful in my eyes. And that's probably part of what you meant by the story the storyteller wanted to tell.
– StreltsovOct 16 '14 at 15:49

It would be speculation only on my part but besides narrative decision if you must give justification to her action it could be that she inflicted more pain on him by killing herself rather than shooting him. however the average 19 century person probably would not know enough about psychology and the long term effects to have it be a conscious decision,

Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).